Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Post-release)

What did you think of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker?


  • Total voters
    415
I tried sitting through the prequels a few years ago and I only got about 20 minutes in before I shut them off.

They may have had an overarching vision and I can give credit to Lucas for trying something new, but man are they bad.

For my money the ST failures don't excuse the failures of the PT. I just find one to be more egregious than the other. But neither of them count anyway as far as I'm concerned so ultimately it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

I just find it interesting that five months on no one, not even fans of the ST, really seem to care all that much about it. In some ways that's almost worse than being actively hated. At least in that regard people remembered them.

If you search through this thread, even up until the movie was released, the topic was on fire and then it came out and the discussion mostly died off. Instead of a serious impact on its release it was more like a dull thud. No one seems to care anymore.

What a shame. It seems like the reaction was more, oh well, on to the next thing.

I think there's few things behind this.

First, when the prequels came out, they were IT. There would never be ny more Star Wars again, as far as anyone knew at the time. By contrast, with Disney/LFL at the helm, we all know that Star Wars films and TV shows and stuff are like buses: you know there's gonna be another one in due course. So, there's less of a sense of "OMG, they HAVE to get this right!!!"

Second, I think that the whipsawing style of the ST is part of the issue. The PT, for better or worse, has a sort of consistent thru-line. Although the tone shifts from lighter to darker, the style of how all of that is relayed is pretty consistent. Lucas' approach to storytelling is largely the same throughout. His weaknesses remain the same, and his strengths remain the same. With the ST, given that you had two different directors with very, very different storytelling styles, it barely feels like a single, consistent trilogy. The two bookend chapters feel wildly different from the middle chapter in terms of how they tell their stories, how the stories hold together, how moments hit, what kinds of things the directors focus on, etc. As a result, the ST is very much a mixed bag. Some people love the bookends, some people love the middle chapter, some people kinda like all aspects of it but maybe prefer one approach to the other, but I know very few people who lovelovelove all three equally, the same way.

There's also the aspect that I think people could have burned out on the fighting after TLJ. That movie was incredibly divisive, even moreso than TFA was, and I think it just...sapped people's energy. Folks who like it are tired of defending it to folks who hate it. Folks who hate it still hate it and wrote off most of the ST as a result.

Finally, I think that TROS is....really not very good as a final chapter. It feels very thrown together when you sit back and think about it. It has a whole bunch of moments that feel nice while you're watching it, but which, afterwards, you can only dimly remember. And that, I think, is because it's not really...a coherent story. It's more a series of stuff happening and hitting various beats because this is where you hit the beat, not because there's anything intrinsic to the story that requires it to happen then. (And that doesn't even address the whole "undercutting big emotional moments a few minutes after they happen" aspect). I could go on here, but from my perspective, JJ's films feel like big budget fan films, full of the same myopic vision of what Star Wars is that you'd expect from people who can't think beyond endlessly reiterating what came before.

End result, whereas the PT generated extreme reactions (love or hate), the ST -- now that it's all done -- engenders more of a "meh" response. I "like" it overall. I don't "love" it. I love that it has a female protagonist because it makes Star Wars that much more accessible to my daughter. But I wish it had more of a coherent style to it. If JJ had done the whole thing, I think....well, I think I would've felt much the same. I don't really like JJ's style. I think he's a weak storyteller. He crafts moments, not narratives, and that ultimately hurts his films because it leaves them feeling like a series of barely connected events that you mostly forget, with a few highlights that are emotional scenes, but ultimately which become disposable. They say nothing one way or the other, and therefore they don't engender any especially strong feelings one way or the other. By contrast, I LOVE TLJ. I love the challenge it makes to Star Wars as a franchise, the opportunity it creates for how those stories are told to grow, and the degree of care it takes with its characters...but it's just one film smack in the middle of a rollercoaster ride. It's like you jumped on Space Mountain, and in the middle of it, the ride slows down dramatically, and you get a philosophy discussion. It's really jarring, and just as it's starting to get interesting and you're adjusting to Philosophy Mountain....WHOOSH!! You're off again and it's twists and turns and holy **** what the hell did I just watch?! And then it's done. So you leave, and you say "Huh. So....that was a thing," and go on about your business.

That's the thing about rollercoaster rides. You remember the overall vibe of it, maybe one or two cool moments, but for the most part, it's a blur and you forget it and move on. Those are the films JJ makes. He's good at making them. But they're disposable fluff. Cotton candy. Bright, attractive, made of nothing but pure sugar, and forgotten moments after they're consumed.
 
I always enjoy your take on things.


Thanks! Back at ya!

To be clear, I think TROS is a fun roller coaster ride...but that's kinda all that it is. It has some genuinely emotional moments, which sorta connect to TFA, but otherwise...it's nothing special, just like all of JJ's stuff. Like, I don't rewatch his Star Trek films. I enjoyed them when I saw them, but I don't really rewatch them. I've rewatched TFA, but it's not something I've wanted to put on and re-watch because I felt some desire to revisit it, outside of "Oh, the new movie is coming out. I'll refresh my recollection."

I may revisit the whole ST at some point and do a marathon viewing or three-nights-in-a-row viewing or something, but I dunno. I suppose my attitude could change over time, but for now, that's where I am.
 
I really enjoyed his Star Trek and also Into Darkness when I first saw them and have only re-watched them a few times since. I respect Star Trek but was never a big fan so I couldn't really give it a fair shake on how it compares to real the real thing. I suspect that they likely don't hold up to repeat viewings, much like Micheal Bay. Maybe fun one or two times, but ultimately not very good if you think too much about it. Which is sad because Trek is highly intellectual.

Even when TFA came out and I was still hopeful about the ST, I only saw it in the theater maybe twice. I only ever saw it on Bluray after that another two times, which even being mostly okay with it was pretty sad considering I had no real excitement for it after I saw it the first time. Then Rogue One came and I saw it the one time, but didn't care to own it. Then 8 came. I saw it once. Never again. I didn't bother seeing Solo because it just felt unnecessary and nothing about the trailers grabbed me. I have no desire to see it either and I skipped 9 altogether too. Meh.

On a happy note I have 4k77 and 4k83 and they are wonderful!
 
I liked JJ's Trek re-boot quite a bit, mostly because of the actors' ability to capture the feel of the original characters. I can still watch it and enjoy it. Into Darkness, not so much. The 'original' Wrath of Khan was still a 'sequel' of sorts, but I would have preferred original adventures for the re-boot crew. For reference, I was a fan of the original ST series and movies, but not at all a fan of Next Gen, or any of the other spinoffs.

TFA, IMHO, missed out on a lot of potential, but it was ultimately a set-up for a trilogy that went badly off the rails. It hit the right marks in a lot of places, but wasn't a solid stand-alone effort. The lack of follow-through with the ST makes it look worse in retrospect.

Curious how some of you felt about Super 8? That's a film I still enjoy watching from time to time.
 
I really enjoyed his Star Trek and also Into Darkness when I first saw them and have only re-watched them a few times since. I respect Star Trek but was never a big fan so I couldn't really give it a fair shake on how it compares to real the real thing.
I feel like enjoyment of JJ-Trek is inversely proportional to how well you know what came before. As someone who grew up watching TOS with my parents in re-runs, was a teenager and thus perfectly poised to fall hard for TNG when it debuted, and has absorbed the setting like a thirsty man in the desert, JJ-Trek takes a steaming dump over nearly everything that came before it. The characters are all almost entirely out of character, the tech is weird, forget science entirely -- and then shoehorn in callbacks that only original fans will get.
I didn't bother seeing Solo because it just felt unnecessary and nothing about the trailers grabbed me.
Which is unfortunate, as I feel it is the best of the five post-sale films thus far. Oh, it still has its faults -- my most common refrain being it needed to be more than one film -- but far fewer, I feel, than the ST or R1.
I liked JJ's Trek re-boot quite a bit, mostly because of the actors' ability to capture the feel of the original characters.
Ironic. I had just said the exact opposite. Apart from Karl Urban, who nailed De's mannerisms, everyone else felt like they were doing a bad caricature of the original characters. And those are all actors I adore elsewhere.
For reference, I was a fan of the original ST series and movies, but not at all a fan of Next Gen, or any of the other spinoffs.
Little off-topic, but I'm curious what failed to engage you.
Curious how some of you felt about Super 8? That's a film I still enjoy watching from time to time.
I like it a lot. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is -- a pæan to '80s Spielberg films. Except JJ did manage to get lens flare off a pile of dirt at one point...
 
I just felt like Solo was more or less a checklist to everything I already knew about the character by watching A New Hope. I've seen scenes from it and while they don't look bad, it also doesn't add anything to the character to me. To it's credit there was a deleted scene that I thought was great which was the snowball fight. Just a small character moment that hit me in the feels.

I hated Super 8. There were some cool moments and the kids they cast were very, very talented, but in his attempt to pay homage to Spielberg all JJ did was rip him off. I was laughing out loud in the theater by the end of the movie with the alien having E.T. eyes. Then trying to strong arm the audience into feeling bad for the alien after brutally murdering some people because he was "scared" and thus deciding to help it totally pulled me out of the movie. Plus seeing the kids riding their bikes through their neighborhood as bombs were literally blowing up around them was just silly. I think in JJ's mind having characters arguing and talking over each other implies that people are actually friends with a history instead of showing the audience their friendship grow naturally over the course of the movie.

In my opinion Stranger Things delivered on the promise Super 8 broke.
 
Curious how some of you felt about Super 8? That's a film I still enjoy watching from time to time
I liked Super 8 a lot, although the ending (surprise surprise) I thought was kind of weak and unformed. Maybe it’s because I connect to the kids and the idea of trying to shoot a movie on their own. It also reminds me a lot of the Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation story from the 80s, where a group of kids set out to remake Raiders shot for shot
In my opinion Stranger Things delivered on the promise Super 8 broke.

But ultimately, I have to agree with this, as virtually everything I liked about Super 8 was done better and in spades with Stranger Things.
 
I too loved the concept of Super 8 and Raiders: The Adaptation came to mind when I was watching it. I did the same kind of thing as a teenager trying to make my own Star Wars film. So that aspect of it appealed to me and like I said the cast was the best part of the movie. Those kids were great and gave me hope that there was a new generation of kid actors on the horizon.
 
I remember the trailer for "Super 8" a lot more than than the actual movie. I don't remember the end at all. None of J.J.'s films sink in with me. Sweaty-faced people crying is not a replacement for any genuine feelings of emotion or connection.

In fact, the trailers for all J.J. involved films seem more memorable than the actual movie.
 
It's because JJ has the ability to appeal to an audience's emotions rather than truly engaging with them and trusting that an audience will care about his characters enough if he slows down to let a scene breathe. It's just a quick cut to the next set piece or he might lose their attention. At least that's how it comes across. I think audiences can sense emotional whiplash, even when they aren't always consciously aware of it.

Some of those TFA trailers are great, but they aren't a good indicator of the final product. Even 21 years on The Phantom Menace teaser trailer still looks great, but we know how that turned out.

It's just a shame that there was potential for these movies that, for my money, went unrealized. Ultimately I'm okay and I can't spend the rest of my life worrying about what could have been. It's just fun to discuss the possibilities that the ideas in these scripts offered.
 
Solo4114 , mike drop post. :cool:

It's because JJ has the ability to appeal to an audience's emotions rather than truly engaging with them and trusting that an audience will care about his characters enough if he slows down to let a scene breathe. It's just a quick cut to the next set piece or he might lose their attention. At least that's how it comes across. I think audiences can sense emotional whiplash, even when they aren't always consciously aware of it.

Some of those TFA trailers are great, but they aren't a good indicator of the final product. Even 21 years on The Phantom Menace teaser trailer still looks great, but we know how that turned out.

It's just a shame that there was potential for these movies that, for my money, went unrealized. Ultimately I'm okay and I can't spend the rest of my life worrying about what could have been. It's just fun to discuss the possibilities that the ideas in these scripts offered.
THIS. This is why I think the original idea to have JJ do the first one and then other directors the rest of the trilogy have merit. I kinda still like Star Trek - The Star Trek. It's something to kick off a series, has a good feel and characters, sets the whole stuff in motion. Arguable yes if it has anything to do with Star Trek but as its own thing it kinda works. Into the Wrath of Khan on the other hand...In actual fact by a mile the best new Trek movie is Beyond IMO.
I still like TFA, I think it was a good movie to reignite my lost interest in SW, set some of the new players up and have something to build on then leave it to more capable filmmakers to create depth and proper stakes/tension in the middle chapter and to pay it off in the end. BUT for this to work the framework of the story had to be worked out and adhered to more than "well Kylo Ren will return to the light and sacrifice himself in the end".
 
I think the funniest and probably most truthful thing I've read of TROS....its the conclusion of the Skywalker saga yet its mainly two Palpatines fighting.
Maybe not exactly, but close enough.

I was thinking about this the other day while sitting on the mower, lol. Boiled down, Star Wars is the Skywalkers vs Palpatine. But then I realized it's really more the Force vs Palpatine. The Force makes Anakin to eliminate the unbalance created by Palpatine. Palpatine turns Anakin to prevent that. The Force brings Luke and Leia up, and through their efforts, Darth Vader and Darth Sidious is destroyed. But Palpatine cheats death, so the Force brings up his own flesh and blood against him.
 
I was thinking about this the other day while sitting on the mower, lol. Boiled down, Star Wars is the Skywalkers vs Palpatine. But then I realized it's really more the Force vs Palpatine. The Force makes Anakin to eliminate the unbalance created by Palpatine. Palpatine turns Anakin to prevent that. The Force brings Luke and Leia up, and through their efforts, Darth Vader and Darth Sidious is destroyed. But Palpatine cheats death, so the Force brings up his own flesh and blood against him.
Oh, but wait, I thought it was “revealed” in “canon comics” that Palpatine was the one who “created” Anakin, not the Force.
 
So by that rationale it's the Palpatine saga, not the Skywalker saga.

Considering how much weight Palpatine is given in the PT (he has the clearest motivation of all the characters in that entire trilogy) to only return for TROS and have Rey be his granddaughter it shifts the focus away from the Skywalkers and makes it the Palpatine saga.
 
So by that rationale it's the Palpatine saga, not the Skywalker saga.

Considering how much weight Palpatine is given in the PT (he has the clearest motivation of all the characters in that entire trilogy) to only return for TROS and have Rey be his granddaughter it shifts the focus away from the Skywalkers and makes it the Palpatine saga.
I mean sure... its the Skywalkers and their foe. I don't see that as a problem.
 
Back
Top